Delhi in recent months has acquired the ‘distinction’ of becoming the most polluted city in the world, beating Beijing for this ‘honour’. In November, the AQI (index of air pollution) reached the figure of 600 in many parts of Delhi, representing 10 times the acceptable limit—an alarming situation indeed. This did not suddenly emerge out of the blue so to speak—the air quality in Delhi has been steadily worsening over recent years, with not even a token attempt by any authority to take any kind of steps to contain the problem. Last week, Kejriwal’s Delhi government came up with a drastic solution—only odd or even number cars will be allowed on alternate days into the city. This was ostensibly in response to recent observations of the Delhi High Court, chastising the authorities for not taking remedial action to improve air quality.
Reactions from various players have been on expected lines. The home ministry pointed out that ‘transport’ is a subject under the purview of the government of India—minister Kiren Riiju’s statement, a typical turf-protection and knee-jerk political response, did not give any hint as to why the government of India did not think earlier of any remedial action, nor initiate any mitigation steps. It was the job primarily of the environment ministry, which has been highly active in Paris and elsewhere on climate change issues, forgetting its responsibilities for pollution control in India, to have ensured that the situation did not reach such critical proportions. The minister pointed out that the Delhi government’s decision (allowing cars on roads every alternate day with an odd-even number formula) was ‘impractical’; it did not explain why the ministry has not moved a muscle in this regard for years. Many ‘wise’ commentators have sagaciously pointed out that this method has been tried out in many cities, and has been circumvented by the public through various means. The police department in Delhi, which is at loggerheads with the Delhi government, has plaintively argued that ‘we have not been consulted’. Most observers and commentators, sadly, have not focused on the criticality of the situation, the grave danger to public health it poses—the responses have been routinely party-oriented or highly biased.
One should see the announcement by the Delhi government as the raising of an alarm flag, and an announcement that drastic steps will be taken. Surely, without large-scale support and development of public transport, badly neglected in Delhi (indeed in all Indian cities) over decades, a sudden enforcement of the new dispensation from January 2016 will indeed pose much hardship for the citizens. Development of public transport cannot be achieved overnight—if the new rule is enforced, there will be considerable adverse effect in many ways. Special issues relating to emergency movement for medical or other reasons, vehicles coming from other states (or referred to as major arguments against the new policy) need to be addressed in a practical manner. If this decision spurs urgent consideration of other pollution control methods and systems, that would be highly desirable. The short point is that Kejriwal’s decision has signalled the imperative need to take effective steps to curb pollution in Delhi—if there are adverse consequences, these have to be taken in the stride. If a person neglects his diabetes or his blood pressure over a long period, when the major crisis hits him, inevitably he will have to face the prospect of surgery or ICU.
The Chief Justice of India already has weighed in with a statement that he welcomes the Delhi government decision, and will support any consequential steps that may be required. Kejriwal has also announced that if there are major implementation issues, the order will be withdrawn, and alternatives would be explored.
When the road capacity increases by 0.5 per cent and vehicular traffic by 7 per cent every year, traffic log jams are inevitable. The problem is not unique in Delhi—many other Indian cities are not far behind. Major cities in the world cope with the problem through high-quality subsidised public transport, coupled with heavy taxation on motor vehicles, as well as stiff vehicle-entry fees into specified zones. These and other time-tested mechanisms are available as examples. The Delhi government’s decision may not be the only solution that will function with least collateral cost on the ground; the move needs to be taken as a signal for imperative urgent action by authorities concerned.
Again it may be naive to consider Kejriwal’s move as purely altruistic. Surely, he knows well that the police and transport departments are under the control of the Central government. It is very likely that the AAP’s political calculation is to show up the inefficiency of the Central government, as well as the inability of the authorities concerned to step up to the plate when the occasion demands it. These are games politicians play; however, the point is irrefutable that the government of India has just failed to grasp the gravity of the situation over the years, and take appropriate preventive measures, however unpleasant they may have been. One cannot take nature on confrontation mode for long, without suffering the consequences.
tsrsubramanian@gmail.com
Subramanian is a former Cabinet Secretary